united states senator. >> you can watch all of today's interviews unedited on our website, cnn.com/sotu. thank you so much for watching state of the union. up next for our viewers here in the united states, "fareed zakaria gps." this is "gps" the global public square. welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a special program today. a rare and exclusive conversation with the national security adviser, tom donlin who many believe is the principle adviser on foreign policy. we'll talk about the whole range of foreign policy challenges confronting the united states and president obama. next up -- a country more politically divided than the united states. really? what in the world? then what's really behind the

revolutions in the arab world and who will be the driving force going forward? we'll take an in-depth look. first here's my take. watching the return of the greek crisis many people in america are wondering, are we next? will america face the same financial disaster that the greek government faces with a soring deficit and debt, markets that have lost faith in it and a downward spiral of budget cuts that further depress the economy? it might. but let us understand something really important. america stands in a fundamentally different place than does greece. greece has two problems. first, it has a big budget deficit and markets have lost faith that it can ever repay its loans. second, it is an unproductive economy and cannot generate enough economic growth over the next few decades. in economies, degree has a liquidity problem but also a solvency problem. the united states, by contrast, does not have a solvency

problem. the american economy remains one of the world's most competitive with many of the fastest-growing companies in most of the advanced industries. it houses the best capital markets in the world, the greatest universities, the most dynamic society. america is demographically vibrant thanks to immigration. it will be the only rich country that will see its population grow over the next 25 years. america could face a liquidity problem, that is it could have difficulty financing its debts and deficits if markets lose faith in it, again, let's be clear. this has not happened yet. in fact, right now, the world is lending to america more cheaply than ever before. the most important difference between greece and america is this -- america has many paths to solve this deficit problem. were it to implement the

simpson-bowles plan, congress would allow the bush tax cuts to expire, returning rates to where they were under bill clinton's presidency, where american created almost 25 million jobs. that one action would provide the federal government with $3.9 trillion in revenues over the next decade and basically solve the deficit problem. we would still face the long-term problem of entitlements, especially health care costs, like every other rich country, but the short and medium-term crisis would be over. please understand, greece, portugal, ireland, have no such economic answer to their problems. europe is choosing between only terrible and dangerous options in resolving the greek dilemma, massive unending bailouts or a default that could turn into a lehman brother-type event. america's economic problems might have a simple solution. but our political system seems utterly unable to get to us this solution. one party refuses to even think

about tax increases. the other will not take seriously the problem of entitlement reform. the result, paralysis. and if we do end up losing the trust of markets and it can happen, it will not be because they lost faith in america, in our economy and society but because they despaired at the country's selfish and self-defeating politicians. on july fourth weekend, that's a pretty depressing thought. for more on this you can read my column in this week's "time" magazine or at time.com. let's get started. thank you for doing this. >> thank you. good to see you, fareed. >> tom, when you look at administration strategy in libya, there seems to be a hope that gadhafi is planning an exit, but are there any actual

indications that he is? we are planning for post-gadhafi libya but is he? >> yes. i don't know the answer to that question. what i can tell you is this, we have done in libya exactly what we said we were going to do. we had a humanitarian crisis. we put together an effort working with nato and coalition partners to deal with that crisis through military force. and we were successful at doing that. we have a longer-term policy goal of seeing gadhafi go. the people of libya won't be safe and we won't have a stable situation there by any means until he does go. we have put together a broad comprehensive efforts to pressure him to step down. i think the efforts are succeeding, fareed. you've seen success by the opposition leaders militarily as they move towards tripoli. you've seen the standing up in the opposition group in the form of the tnc, as increasingly and

legitimate. there's almost an inevitability here building as to what the ultimate result will be. >> why not recognize the opposition? >> i think that's a complicated legal issue, frankly. we have said straight up they are the legitimate and credible representative, the libyan people. we'll continue -- and under that guys they've garnered a lot of support from around the world. we have a representative in benghazi who works with the opposition group, the tnc. >> would you be willing to arm them the way the french are now publicly announcing they are? >> we have at this point provided a broad range of nonlethal supplies to the tnc. we haven't made a decision with respect to lethal assistance? >> you're not ruling it out. >> we haven't made a decision at this point. >> in syria, you have a decision where a brutal dictator is engaging in a crackdown that in

many ways seems similar to moammar gadhafi's. yet the administration will not publicly call for president assad to resign. why? >> what we have called for is a stop to the violence. we have worked with the international community and unilaterally to put increased pressure on him through sanctions and other means. we have indicated to the syrians that it's important for him to either move to some sort of reform agenda or transition or get out of the way. that's essentially the strategy that we've undertaken. >> why are you stopping short of asking him to resign when you did ask mubarak to resign? >> with respect to mubarak -- there are different circumstances. they are different circumstances at this point. we continue to press the syrian leader assad who has made terrible mistakes and really has, i think, misserved his people. and obviously abused his people

through the violent actions against them. as they were engaged in peaceful and peaceful protests. we'll continue to put pressure on him to have a -- to move towards a more representative and responsive government. >> what kind of pressure? >> as i said, i laid out, syria sin creasingly isolated in the world. we have been working with syria's neighbors to continue to put pressure on him, the turks have put public pressure on president assad and the person of prime minister ertiwon. they are increasingly isolated on this. i think you're see something results of the pressure and president assad has indicated that he wants to move towards a national political dialogue and some change. we have good reason to be

skeptical about that given the choices he's made to date. this is the path we're on at this point. continued pressure, continued isolation, to force him towards a set of decisions toward a more representative, responsive government. >> the president said in his speech on the arab spring that there were points at which our interests and values might collide or might be in tension. it seems nowhere is that more true than saudi arabia. if there were significant street protests in saudi arabia, would the administration side with the saudi government or the saudi people? >> well, if there were significant protests, it would depend on the circumstances, right? it's a hypothetical. i wouldn't really want to address. i can tell you this, though, the united states and saudi arabia have a set of very important shared interests. we had a shared interest in seeing that no country or force in the region seeks or tries to achieve dominance.

we have a very important shared interest in seeing restrictions on weapons of mass destructions with proliferation in the region. we have a shared interest and anti-terrorism cooperation. we have a shared interest in a stab stable. that's the basis on which we work with the saudis. we also have a view and we press repeatedly throughout the region. >> is saudi arabia doing enough on political reform? >> they have -- these nations have to move forward at their -- in their -- in a way that's consistent with their circumstances. and we obviously have a view that in fact moving towards more representative and responsive government is the healthiest and most stable way to go over the long term. >> you went to saudi arabia -- >> did i. >> you spent two hours with the

king. the reports are, is he very unhappy with the united states and with our policy toward the arab spring? >> yes. i think coming out of the beginnings of the arab spring, so much uproar, so much turmoil and fareed, so much change, that we did have some scratchy periods with some partners in the region who were wrestling with this and trying to work through their own views on this. i would be, again, less than candid with you if i didn't say we didn't have some points of friction or disagreement with some of our partners in the region. but i think this, and based on my direct conversations with the leadership of saudi arabia, about the kinds of common strategic interests we have that i laid out earlier in the conversation, i think our relationship is in pretty good shape. >> our conversations with our partners in the region, including the saudis, i think,

have become very constructive and productive. i can tell you that from personal conversations with king abdullah. >> the president campaigned on the idea that he would try to negotiate with iran. >> yes. >> you came to the office, i would argue, making overtures. those overtures seemed to be rebuffed by the iranian leadership, then you had the green movement and it seems to me unclear where we are. my question to you would be, does the administration still want to negotiate with the current iranian leadership and get a deal on the nuclear issue? >> we offered the iranian government, quite directly, a bona fide offer of engagement, the iranian government, the leaders of iran, have chosen not to take that up. i think their ability to engage that decision deteriorated after the june 2009 elections when it became clear that that government was having a very difficult time making that kind of fundamental decision.

that path remains open to the iranians, to come to the table and deal with the nuclear issues, increasingly serious nuclear issues, not just the united states but the entire world community sees. there was always associated, though, with our openness and a bona fide offer of engagement, there was always an associated pressure track. and that pressure track is the track we've been pursuing during the last period of time. indeed, we put additional sanctions on iran just in the last week or so. iran is now subject, through their own behavior, to the most severe sanctions in the world. they can't do business with legitimate banks. they can't do business in euros or dollars. by our account, $60 billion of investment have gone away or not been pursued in the energy and oil industry where they desperately need investment to get their antiquate e e ed fiel refineries up to speed. the leaders of iran are leading

them down a path where a great society is becoming an isolated state, a state that can't interact with the rest of the world in the most basic ways. the pressure track, unfortunately, is where we are today. again, with the opportunity for the iranians. if they're willing to take it, to have a conversation with us and the world community about their nuclear program. i will say this about the iranian iranians. they were not the cause of the arab spring, although some claimed that. they've tried to take advantage of it. in syria, right yb in , in bahr other places around the region. i think that's going to fail. i think one of the attributes of the arab spring has been, i think to draw a sharp contrast between what's happened and what really is kind of a desire for basic freedom and democracy, a sharp contrast between that

narrative and the al qaeda narrative of undifferentiated, violent opposition, right, with no affirmative plan and the iranian narrative. i think over the long haul, this is a further isolating set of events for the iranians and not something where they're going to have an advantage. >> when we come back, i'm ask tom donlin, the national security adviser whether we're drawing down in afghanistan too fast. so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you.

we are back with tom donilon, national security adviser to president obama. apparently general petraeus was urging a slower withdrawal to consolidate the gains of the surge. isn't there a risk that in drawing down too fast you allow the violence to return to afghanistan? there are some indications it's

already happening. >> well, the decision in afghanistan was made against a real record of achievement here and from a position of strength. the drawdown, as you know is not at all precipitous. the drawdown is a sound, paced withdrawal between now and the end of next summer. when i say the decision was made from a position of strength, i mean it's against the goals that we laid out, which was done precisely by president obama and those goals essentially were two. one is to dismantle, disrupt and ultimately defeat al qaeda. we are on the way to doing that through the work that we've done the last 2 1/2 years and the second was to prevent the afghan government, the kabul government, from falling so it would become a safe haven for al qaeda or an associated group again. we're on the way to giving the afghans the capability to do that. remember, our time horizon is between now and 2014. 10,000 troops this year, after the end of this fighting season, another 23,000 troops by the end

of next summer. at that point we'll still have 68,000 troops focused on the mission. it's a backdrop of some success, progress, it's a responsible, steady way to go about this. and end our work on the schedule that we've laid out. now, from general petraeus' perspective, commanders -- he has said this publicly -- are always going to want more troops for longer. we believe from the perspective of our national priorities, other global resource allocation, this say sound way to approach this, again, from a position of string. a crucial part to allowing afghanistan to end up more stable even if there are fewer troops is some kind of deal that involves some elements of the taliban coming back into the political system. ahmed rashid details the negotiatings that have been taking place between the united states and the taliban. for hours and hours the germans were intermediaries.

nothing seems to have come of it. why is it proving so difficult to, in some way, bring the taliban into the tent? >> for a couple of things, i'd say about that, without commenting on the specifics of the piece in the "financial times" that you referenced. at the end of the day, this will have to be settled in a political settlement. i think that's clear. why is it hard? there's been a conflict there for a nufb years. the taliban is not an entity where it works at a specific address. you have to get these things to a point where you can have a set of reasonable conversations. what we've said, though, quite clearly and secretary of state said this in her speech earlier this year, the united states is prepared to work with the afghans, with the afghans in the lead to work towards a political settlement here and to bring the parties to the table without precondition. ultimately as the president said in his speech the other day,

reconciliation will require the taliban or anybody else who comes to the table to agree to renounce violence, renounce al qaeda and agree to the constitution. but it's an interactive process, if you will, fareed. i think we have all the elements of that process under way here. >> are you hopeful you will see results in the next few months? >> i can't predict that at this point. what i can tell you is this, we've put in place the lines of work, the pieces of strategy that we think can bring this war in afghanistan to a close and bring it to the point where the united states and its coalition partners can turn security over to the afghans, where we would remain in a smaller enduring presence with the afghans and provide the opportunity for a political settlement. those pieces are in place. we've indicated straight up support for a political process with the afghans, afghans in the lead and we're pushing the transition process forward. i think we've put in place the pieces of a strategy towards a political settlement.

i can't hit here and tell you today which time scale that could work. >> one of the reasons al qaeda is under so much pressure, the united states has used unique assets as john brennan recently said by which everyone generally accepts, this means drone attacks. the pakistani military just announced, the defense minister sid, they will not allow the united states to use the base anymore. have you been told by the pakistanis that the united states has to curtail or limit its military operations in pakistan? >> let me say a couple things about that. number one, from the outset of the administration we determined that we would launch an aggressive, focused, relentless effort on al qaeda and associated groups to dismantle, disrupt and ultimately defeat them. we've been doing that successfully.

and we're going to continue these efforts and these efforts are focus the on al qaeda central and south asia but also focused on affiliates around the world, number one. number two, we have the capability to continue this. without commenting on the story that you have outlined here, i have every confidence we can continue this, that we will continue this effort at apace in an intensity that will allow to us put al qaeda -- continue to put al qaeda on the road to defeat with respect to the pakistanis. the pakistanis, fareed, and the united states have a complicated relationship, as you know. there will be frustrations and disagreements. we remained engaged with the pakistanis for a number of very important reasons related to our national security and ultimately their security. they are very important counterterrorism partners for the united states. the pakistanis have lost thousands of military and civilians to the hands of

extremi extremists. more extremists groups and individuals have been attacked and taken down in pakistan than any place else in the world. they are very important partners of ours. we will have frustrations and indeed we've obviously had an important set of conversations, difficult conversations with the pakistanis since the raid on the osama bin laden compound in abbottabad, pakistan. we're committed to working through these issues. we believe it's in our national interest to do so. >> you saw "the new york times" article that detailed using cell phone conversations, what seemed pretty clear evidence, that the pakistani military, some elements of the pakistani military must have known that osama bin laden was holed up in abbottabad. does your intelligence confirm that? >> i've not seen any evidence that the pakistani leadership elements, the army, military,

the intelligence or the political leadership, had foreknowledge of osama bin laden's operating in abbottabad, pakistan. >> you're saying leadership. >> i can't speak -- i don't -- i can't confirm or deny what you laid out here. i haven't seen any evidence that the leadership knew. the fact is that osama bin laden operated out of abbottabad, pakistan, for six years or so in an operational role leading al qaeda in a town 35 miles from islamabad. it is clear he had some sort of support mechanism there. i don't think at this point we know all the elements of that support mechanism and we're still obviously working through that. we have a tremendous amount of information that we recovered from the abbottabad compound where osama bin laden operated. we continue to work through that. but at this point, i don't have any evidence that has been shown to me which would indicate the pakistani leadership and the military, the intelligence

services are foreknowledge here. the fact is he did operate there for an extended period of time and that raises a lot of questions and those questions are being asked in pakistan. when we come back, i ask tom donilon, the national securitied avieders, if there san obama doctrine and does it involve leading from behind?

we are back with tom donilon, national security adviser to president obama. is there a obama doctrine? >> here's how i would answer that question. what we have been about since the outset of the administration is to restore united states influence, prestige and power in the world. it went through a period of dimunation. for this reason, the united states went through a pretty serious period of diminunation. we have done this along three or four lines of work.

renewing alliances both in asia and in europe. engaging in positive or constructive relationships with purposeful work with great powers from a platform in which we can operate. developing relationships with emerging powers like india, brazil and others. and rebalancing our efforts in the world. which is an absolutely critical thing for to us pursue. >> explain what rebalancing means. >> we looked at where the united states footprint was, where the united states face to the world was when we came into office in january 2009 and we asked ourselves where are we underweighted, overweighted, where are we not putting real work into the future. we've been acting on those conclusions. we needed to finish our military work in iraq. we're on track to doing that. by 2011, to have 150,000 troops

out of iraq by the end. we saw ourselves as needing more strategic attention and focus in counterterrorism. we did that against al qaeda and associated groups. we really considered ourselves, fareed, underweighted in asia. as we looked at the world, we looked at our interests and the future, we concluded that we did not have the mind share, the diplomatic effort, the resources and presence in asia, given what we had at stake in asia. it wasn't a mistake by the way or an accident that secretary clinton took her first trip to asia, the first secretary of state to do that since dean rusk in 1961. very importantly working with china as part of our asia strategy, through intensive engagement, which includes engaging directly with them intensively, integrating them into international institutions and norms of dispute resolution

and solving problems. and very importantly, setting the regional context through our work to do what we can do ensure a peaceful rise of china an economically and secure asia. >> the "new yorker" had a long article about obama's foreign policy has a quote from an administration official saying we're leading from behind. this has become something of a controversial quote. do you think it accurately characterizes obama's foreign policy? do you wish that senior administration official had not said that to the "new yorker"? >> i don't think it has anything to do with the policy or he's approached his job as president of the united states. part of my job is to brief the president every morning. i think i'm now up to 450 of these briefings. that doesn't reflect anything that i've ever heard from president obama.

and i don't know how that person, whoever he or she was, could call themselves an adviser to the president. it's clearly an adviser who has never been in a serious conversation with him. >> david brooks says obama has a leadership style about convening and delegating and sometimes he seems passive. does that strike you as correct? >> it doesn't strike me as correct. i read brooks' column and had the following reaction to it. it doesn't strike me as correct at all with respect to foreign policy. we he we have from the outset, as i described earlier, taken a serious effort to rebalance activities in the world. it's a president who made decisions at the outset in iraq. it's a president who made a decision with afghanistan that in fact we were underresourced and didn't have strategy and direction and tripled the number of troops through a surge we're now seeing, again, from a position of success being able to take down.

the numbers of. it's a president who has had the united states in the lead in terms of counterterrorism. it's a president who in europe, for example, we had a summit last november where the president led the effort on missile defense, on getting a common way forward in afghanistan, on a new concept for europe and nato's work there. it's a president who took the lead on taking the g-20 and making it the premiere and principle financial management, global financial management organization in the world, time after time i've seen the president come into the situation room and i've been there hundreds of times and sit down and make these kinds of decisions where america is leading and, again, the entire effort here is to have america restore its influence, power and authority in the world. of course, i also had the privilege of working slowly with this president as he made

exceedingly difficult decisions leading up to the final decision. to go after osama bin laden. and what was a quintessential presidential moment. my experience with president obama, i'm not, fareed, you know me well enough, i'm not prone to hyperbole. i work on complicated problems every day and i don't see a lot of upsides most of the days. but with respect to president obama's leadership, that quote in the "new yorker" piece couldn't be more inaccurate. >> on that note, tom donilon, thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. great to see you. ♪ my only sunshine ♪ you makes me happy ♪ when skies are grey ♪ you'll never know, dear ♪ how much i love you ♪ please don't take my sunshine away ♪

[ male announcer ] as long as there are babies, they'll be chevy's to bring them home. ♪ [ owl hooting ] things aren't always what they seem out here. like that big fella over there. cost way less than i ever dreamed. i don't tell my friends just how affordable it is cus to them i'm still the big roller, the big cheese, ya know? oh, emmitt. baby, what you doing? y-y-yeah! [ clears throat ] [ deep voice ] yeah, babe. in a second. takin' care of some business. it's surprising just how affordable an rv vacation can be. gorving.com and get a free video. or visit an rv dealer. go affordably. go rving.

i'm t.j. holmes from the cnn center in atlanta, georgia. give you a quick look at the stories making headlines. this morning, the casey anthony murder trial just going to recess. they are in session on a sunday. this was moments ago that the prosecution wrapped up its

closing arguments. it took up about 90 minutes. casey anthony as you know is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter, caylee. she's charged with capital murder which could mean the death penalty if she's found guilty. when they get back from recess, the defense will be up to give its closing. the jury is then expected to get the case. also, rhode island has now legalized same-sex civil unions. governor lincoln chafee signed the bill into law yesterday. this will gave same-sex new state tax breaks, health care benefits and eother legal perks. some people were critical because it did not go far enough and grant marriage. well, that's it for me. "fareed zakaria gps" continues for you right after the break. so now i can take the lead on a science adventure. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both

an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator, working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, take the lead. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.

time now for our "what in the world" segment. here in the united states our politicians seem unable to agree on anything. well, there's one country that's more divided than we are, so divided in fact its people can't even decide on who should run it. belgium has now gone through some 385 days without a functional government. listen to its story. there might be some lessons in

it for us. when belgium last went to the polls, now more than a year ago, the party that won the most seats was called the new phlegm arab license. the alliance's main aim was to split the country in two, not politically but physically. a slight majority of belgium's population, the flemish, speaks dutch and lives in the north of the country in flanders. a minority of the country speaks french and lives in the south of the nation in wallonia. already the country is divided at every level, almost every public service you can think of, schools, hospitals and they are split along the lines of language. there are french schools and flemish schools, flemish hospitals and french hospitals and so on. then brussels, it is french speaking, which is why it is the

capital of the european union. if you partition the country, the french-speaking capital would end up in the dutch-speaking flanders. all clear? you wouldn't normally compare belgium with iraq but that's the country with the previous longest record without a government, for 349 days the iraqi parliament could not decide how to pick a government. iraq's democratic experiment was much maligned at the time, falling down while taking baby steps of democracy. the belgians have of many more practice. they started their current form of government in 1830. you think we are divided? well now you know about the belgians but they're still surviving. how? well, the people of belgium seem to do is grin and bear it. some belgians quite iterally did that, stripping down in the cold winter to make a point.

on february 17th, the day when by some counts belgium overtook iraq as the country with the most days without a government, bell jinz marked it in style. street parties, deejays turning out music, costumes, they had it all and there were some political messages. in dutch-speaking flanders, locals handed out free french fries while in french-speaking wallonia, you could swig some free beer. and a website had this message, government not found, the requested government was not found in this country, please come back, well, later. we live in an area of political unrest and uncertainty in many parts of the world. you have to hand it to the people of belgium. they're taking it in stride with an admirable sense of humor. we will be right back. a legal . and while that leaves a little room for balls and tees,

it doesn't leave room for much else. there's no room left for deadlines or conference calls. not a single pocket to hold the stress of the day, or the to-do list of tomorrow. only 14 clubs pick up the right one and drive it right down the middle of pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org. ♪ i look all tough and uncaring. but when i see an rv roll in with a big family...

well, it fills my heart. but, as affordable as it is, it just makes sense to get everybody up and go on a vacation together. whoa, i didn't mean all of us. [ boy ] it's surprising just how affordable an rv vacation can be. see for yourself at gorving.com and get a free video. or visit an rv dealer. go affordably. go rving.

this weekend in america, we celebrate our revolution but this year, the world has watched the arab revolutions in awe and wonder and sometimes horror. perhaps the biggest question surrounding the arab spring are what incited it, what will

become of it? my next guest, bruce filer says 1 billion muslims around the world under 30 years of age are the key drivers. in his new book he describes what he calls generation freedom as plentiful, plugged in and pro-active. feiler has been on "the new york times" best-seller list with five books on religion and faith. he joins me now. bruce, nice to have you. >> nice to be here. >> you spent time during the arab spring with the young people. >> yes. >> is there any simple characterization one can make of them. >> i think and you just mentioned a bit in your introducti introduction, we can look at them as being four things. they are plentiful. two-thirds of the muslim world in general are under 30. that's $100 milli $100 million

alone. literacy rates are 91%. we're seeing school attendance and the numbers we haven't seen since the asian tigers of the 1980s. there's a lot of them. they're better educated. they're coming out, there's no opportunity. enter the internet. they're plugged in. particularly for women, this internet has been an opportunity to enter the society and the fray that they didn't normally have. they are pro-active. okay? you've got their parents were largely passive recipients of this sort of deal that the dictators did, we'll subsidize your food and your jobs and you won't question our authority. well, they don't have the jobs and they're saying where's our end of the deal? so they're pushing back. i met this young woman i write about in my book. she's 23 years old. she's written two books about

islam and she was on a reality tv show based on donald trump's "apprentice." she said one word she'd put to their generation is awakening. muslim means one who submits. we have a generation of muslim who are pro-active and are pushing back. that's the core of the change. >> when you talk to them, do you have a sense as to what it is they want? is it freedom? is it jobs? is it dignity? >> certainly in the egyptian revolution you would hear dignity was a huge word, social justice, freedom. what it is they want is some sort of sense they are active participants in creating a better life for themselves. they are no longer prepared to be passive. i think that's what we saw -- we see in these revolutions is action on their part. i think that, to me, i look at this whole thing. they don't like the term facebook revolution because they find facebook is a western

technology. they say, look, they use the the fax in tiananmen square. they used the telegraph back in russia. they don't call that the telegraph revolution. within that, i actually think the whole thing is almost like a facebook friend request. this is them reaching out to the west and saying we want to be friends. you don't have to be that close to your facebook friends. the question now is back on us, in that way that facebook gives you the just, confirm or not now, the choice is ours and what do we want to do. >> do they want to be friends? they sound quite anti-american. they feel like america supported these dictators. in general the attitude seems to be one of a great deal of defiance and hostility toward the west. >> i think they don't want to be passive, smubmisive to the west. they certainly are concerned

about the way we supported the dictators and even in the revolutions we've been on the fence. i would draw the distinction as we used to do back in the '80s between the foreign policy dimension of government-to-government, as we saw in the soviet union and people-to-people, governments aren't going to solve this. we've been involved in four wars as you know, far better than i. we have the war in iraq, muddled ending, war in afghanistan, mudd muddled. guns are not going to solve this problem. the days of the marshall plan, the idea we're going to poor hundreds or millions of dollars. this is a g to g movement, a generation to generation movement, realizing there's change there. we'll have to engage on a different level. >> you think what is going on here, the arab world is much kag up with the rest of the world? it's joining the modern world?

>> i think that there's a lot of evidence that this is the beginning of that process. i have, ever since 9/11 been in the middle of this conversation about can we get along? in every one of those conversations people say where are the muslim moderates? i don't hear them. here they are. this is a group of people standing up. it doesn't say the fundamentalists have gone away. clearly they have not. they're in color of iran and hezbollah and hamas and the wahhabis are still out there. what we're seeing for the first time is the rise of this other story. and it's going to give people a clear choice. >> bruce feiler, good to have you. >> thank you, fareed, always good to see you. >> and we will be right back.

any questions? no. you know... ♪ we're not magicians ♪ we can't read your mind ♪ ♪ read your mind ♪ we need your questions ♪ each and every kind ♪ every kind

♪ will this react with my other medicine? ♪ ♪ hey, what are all these tests even for? ♪ ♪ questions are the answer ♪ yeah ♪ oh

this is, of course, independence day weekend in the united states. and that brings to us our "gps" question of the week. might seem like an easy one but watch out. the question is what happened on july 4th, 1776? was it "a," congress voted for independence, "b," the

revolutionary war started, "c," the declaration of independence was approved or "d," the declaration of independence was signed? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. make sure you go to cnn.com/gps for ten more questions. while you're there, make sure you check out our website, the global public square. you'll find smart interviews and takes by some of our favorite experts plus me. follow us on facebook and twitter. this week's book of the week is founding brothers by jofess ellis. it was written a while ago but in my opinion it is one of the best set of stories of the people at the heart of the american revolution. we spent a lot of time in recent weeks debating whether or not we need to amend the constitution. some of you are angry of me for talking about it. to which i say have you heard of the first amendment. whichever side you're on, i'm sure you'll find these essays fascinating. now for the last look, how

do you get a picasso in a war zone? very carefully. you're looking at the $7 million painting in what will be its home for a month, a tiny art museum in ramallah. the west bank isn't exactly the safest place in the world so the security precautions to bring it in this week were extraordinary. the journey from the ledgerlands to the west bank took 24 hours and entailed a lot of arms and armor. museum officials went so far as to ask journalists to accompany the painting on its journey. they figured cameras might better deter an ambush. i wondered why the people of ramallah wanted to display a 68-year-old piece of art in the first place. the apparent answer, to prove they could do it. i like that. the correct answer to our "gps" challenge question is "c," on july 4th, 1776, the declaration of independence was approved by the continental